Masonic Jurisprudence.

This is all very straightforward in a business assembly , where the issue is the important consideration . But in a debate complications sometimes arise , due to ignorance . It should be

remembered that two independent original motions cannot be considered at one time . The lodge frequently considers at the same time two alternative motions , but then one of them is an amended form of the . other .

What is an amendment ? It is not a direct negative . The brother who proposes , by way of amendment , a direct negative of the motion , can get all he wants by voting against it . An amendment is what the term implies , and no more . For instance , it is proposed that £ iobe spent on a set of new tracing

boards . It would be an amendment to propose that only £ 5 be spent , and it would also be an amendment to substitute the word " second-hand" for " new . " But suppose that it were proposed to substitute for the words " tracing boards" words having

reference , say , to a Masonic Charity , such proposed alteration would not be an amendment , and the Worshipful Master would be justified in declining to accept it , as it would virtually imply a direct negative of the original motion .

When an amendment is accepted by the W . M . and put to the lodge as such , the debate takes the form of comparison . In the case already suggested as an example , the debate on the amendment would take the form of enquiry which sum of money ( £ 10 or £ 5 ) could be better afforded , or was most suitable for the

proposed object . The amendment is put to the lodge first of all . It is well to be clear on what actuall y happens at this stage . The W . M . does not put the question as to whether a sum of money shall be spent on the object suggested . The question is only whether £ 5 shall be substituted for £ 16 on the original motion .

If it is carried , the amendment thereupon becomes the main question , and argument proceeds upon its merits , always , of course , subject to the possibility of another amendment . But the W . M . must take care that amendments are not multiplied simply for the purpose of obstruction .

It is a rule that no brother may speak twice , except the mover by way of reply and except by way of explanation ; and this is another point as to which the W . M . has to be careful . When a successful amendment is put as the main question , however , it is practically a new motion and every brother ' s right

of debate revives . It is a rule , however , more honoured in the breach than in the observance , and the W . M . who admits a laxity in this respect will have considerable difficulty in enforcing it at a later period . We cannot too forcibl y urge the importance of insisting that the motion , as first put , and all amendments , and the

motion as finally carried , shall be legibly written out and signed by its sponsors . In the first place , it puts the accuracy of the minutes beyond all question . Half the disputes that arise when minutes are put for confirmation are due to neglect in this

particular . Secondly , it expedites business , it prevents desultory conversation which has no bearing on the issue to be presented , and it prevents casual and ill-considered questions being brought before the lodge .

There are times when the operation of the rule forbidding second interposition in a debate mi ght prove irksome . Frequent explanations are necessary from brethren all round , each explanation expanding into a speech . When such is the case , it k within the W . M . ' s right to " resolve the House into Committee "

—to use a Parliamentary phrase . It must be quite understood that this is only to be done for the purpose of expediting business , and also for the purpose of examining a proposal in detail . A proposition , in addition to its main features , often bristles with minutiai , none of them important enough to be made the

subject of amendment , and none of them affecting the principle . None of them besides can be considered separately , as one depends on another . Such a state of things would arise when bye-laws are to be discussed . It frequently happens that a special Committee is formed to consider such . When the

Committee has concluded its labours it presents a report to the lodge , and the lodge is , strictly speaking , only competent to treat the report as a whole . Three courses are open . To accept it as it stands , to reject it altogether , and appoint a new

Committeea very extreme course— 'and to send it back to the Committee hr amendment—the more usual course in the event of disagreement . Unanimity is more desirable in a lodge than anywhere else , and the Committee should not resent being called upon to resume its labours if thereby unanimity can be secured .

In actual practice , if the points as to which amendment is thought desirable are ol such detail as not to affect any other l ^ oinls , the question is often decided on the spot , and the Committee released from further labour .

The duties of the Committee when m session are hampered by very few rules . In fact , there is but one absolutely strict rule , and that is to keep within the terms of reference . A Committee , for instance , appointed to report upon repairs to the lodge buildings , might possibly be allowed to express an opinion

Masonic Jurisprudence.

as to lighting arrangements , and even about the lodge furniture , without incurring ' the annoyance of being told " to mind its own business . " It would not , however , be competent for such a Committee to recommend that jewels be granted , or to refer to the Masonic Charities .

But an unwritten rule by which all Committees , Masonic or otherwise , should be guided is that the report should be unanimous . Contentious items should be left out if agreement be not possible . A unanimous report has far more chance of its acceptance than one as to which many of the recommendations are the work of a small majority .

We have , m a lormer chapter , referred to the subject of voting at some length , and it is only necessary to repeat what has been before said about the second or casting vote , which custom allows the Master when numbers are equal . Such vote is a trust , to be exercised onl y for the purpose of rescuing a

lodge from a deadlock . It is not intended to give the Master a chance of emphasising his former opinion ; in fact , tradition might dictate to him that he should vote against his private convictions in such a case . The proposition , for instance , is one for altering the time of the lodge meeting . If it is carried , even

by a majority of one , still all who composed that majority are equally responsible , and the onus of making a change in the lodge procedure cannot be attributed to any one in particular . But if members are equal , and the Worshi pful Master gives a casting vote in its favour , the responsibility becomes his , and his alone ,

and he should hesitate to incur it . Privatel y , lie may have been convinced that the change is desirable , but his second vote is a public one , so to speak , and he should vote against it . By so doing , he certainly incurs a responsibility , but it is a very unimportant one . He determines to let things be as they are rather than by his individual action to inaugurate a change .

The writer remembers being in a lodge where a proposition was carried by a majority of one . The Worshi pful Master consulted the bye-laws which contained a clause that no brother more than three months in arrears with his dues should be

allowed to vote . A consultation with the Secretary and the Treasurer followed , after which the Worshi pful Master disallowed the vote of a brother ( one of the majority ) on the ground stated . Numbers thus being equal , he gave a casting vote the other way . This was uncommonl y sharp practice , and it was also illegal ,

though never challenged on the latter ground . The bye-law itself was bad in point of abstract law . It is quite right that a brother in arrears should incur Masonic disability , but he should

have been warned of it at an earlier stage . Still many lodges possess such bye-laws , which have survived a visit to headquarters , and , therefore , the writer only records a personal oi ) inion quantum valeat .

•It is often felt by the opponents of a motion that it is better to avoid a direct negative , whilst , at the same time , they feel that it is an undesirable one for the lodge to adopt . The lodge for instance , is asked to pass a resolution which might imply

sympathy with a political party . Its adoption would be undesirable on Masonic grounds , whilst popular feeling is such that were the resolution to be disposed of b y direct negative , and the circumstance reach the ears of the profane sympathy with the opposite party might be inferred .

Ihe lodge is rescued from this dilemma by "the previous question " being proposed and carried . It is a perfectly well understood device , although the expression is rather ungrammatical inasmuch as there may be no previous question before

the lodge . In fact it means " proceed to the next business , " and it would be interesting to know how the inventor of the phrase could have imagined that a previous question meant a succeeding one .

However , that may pass . When the previous question has been put as an amendment it can only legally be argued against on the ground of the importance of coming to a decision one way or the other . Both parties are satisfied . The proposers

feel that their proposal has not been rejected and its renewal is quite allowable . The opponents feel that the motion has not been carried and they have been spared the unpleasantness of voting against it .

Ihe Worshipful Master is always justified in declining to allow a proposition to be made of which notice has not been given . If lie relax the rule it should be by vote of the lodge duly entered in the minutes . If financial questions are involved it is his duty to require notice inasmuch as the rights and property of absent members are involved .

i he Worshipful Master may allow a visitor to speak to a motion , but the visitor should make use of the permission given in a very tactful way , and what "he says really ought to take the form of expert evidence . He certainl y should avoid such expressions of opinion as would make it appear that he was a partisan .